Floor Statements

Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask that it stand in recess under the previous order.

Mr. President, I would like to honor the life and legacy of Colombian-American journalist and broadcaster, Eucario Bermudez. Bermudez, a beloved south Florida radio legend amongst the Hispanic community, died earlier this month after years of service to the Hispanic community in the State of Florida. Today I pay tribute to Eucario's life, with immense gratitude for his work and dedication.

Mr. President, today I would like to highlight the hard work and unique entrepreneurial spirit that can be found across my home State of Florida. As chairman of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, each week I recognize a small business that exemplifies hard work and dedication toward the local

community. Today, it is my distinct privilege to honor Indian Pass Raw Bar from Port St. Joe in Gulf County, FL, as the Senate Small Business of the Week.

Indian Pass Raw Bar has deep historical ties to the Florida Panhandle along the coastline of the Gulf of Mexico, tracing its roots to a commissary store founded in 1903, for workers in the then-booming turpentine industry. It is located in the same building as the original Indian Pass Trading Post that opened in 1929, where Mrs. Gypsy McNeil established her talent with her delicious seafood gumbo.

In 1986, Hurricane Kate struck the Florida Panhandle and destroyed the Indian Pass Trading Post. The McNeil family showed resilience after the storm and recovered by converting the general store into an oyster bar, setting the stage for business to skyrocket.

Twenty-three miles from Apalachicola, FL, Indian Pass Raw Bar serves the panhandle's world-famous oysters and iconic seafood dishes, such as steamed shrimp and crab legs. Drinks are served on an honor system where customers keep their tabs to turn in at checkout, treating customers like trusted friends. It has become a renowned location for Floridians and tourists alike to enjoy time with family. Southern Living magazine once described Indian Pass Raw Bar as ``quite possibly the best seafood shack in existence.'' It has also received praise from the Garden & Gun magazine as one of Florida's ``Hidden Hotspots.'' Indian Pass Raw Bar's success continued with the opening of a second location in June 2017, in downtown Port St. Joe, FL.

In October 2018, category 5 Hurricane Michael devastated the Florida Panhandle, including Gulf County. The storm severely damaged Indian Pass Raw Bar, as high winds blew off the front door, forcefully removed the air-conditioning system, and threw its iconic street sign hundreds of yards away. However, just as they did after the 1986 storm, the McNeil family is rebuilding and looks forward to continuing to serve their world-famous oysters again this spring. Upon reopening, they will welcome visitors to the gulf coast of Florida for their 90th year in business.

The Indian Pass Raw Bar became what it is today partly because of Hurricane Kate in 1986. The McNeil family understands how devastating these storms truly are and the impact they can have on small business and working families. To help their community, the McNeil family enthusiastically opened their facilities as emergency supply distribution centers to their neighbors in need, despite having their own difficulties. Meredith McNeil said in October 2018: ``This whole area, the whole Gulf, we've done this before. We're all resilient.''

This is the kind of commitment to community that is unique to American small business. During a catastrophe, the Indian Pass Raw Bar helped bring their fellow citizens together by offering emergency supplies in order to help their customers and to give back to the community that has supported their business. Indian Pass Raw Bar is an example of Florida's exceptional entrepreneurship, continuing a 90-year history, being resilient and innovative in its approach to challenges, and giving back to the community during a time of need. I would like to congratulate the McNeil family and all the employees at Indian Pass Raw Bar for being named the Senate Small Business of the Week for the week of January 14 to 18, 2019. I wish them continued success in their future endeavors.

Madam President, it has been an interesting start to this new Congress 2 weeks ago today, I believe--almost 2 weeks ago, this week. We are in a shutdown, and then we had a vote here a few minutes ago to disapprove of a decision made by the administration.

A lot of people would look at that, and they would say that is a sign of weakness and division. Most certainly, I don't like this shutdown. I hope we can figure a way out of it quickly. A lot of people who had nothing to do with it are being hurt. My feelings about that are strong as well. I don't think what the President is requesting is unreasonable, but the reason we have a shutdown is because, at the end of the day, everyone involved--no matter how long and how strongly they disagree--is willing to live by the Constitution, and the Constitution says, the only way you can fund the government is if the House and the Senate pass a spending bill and the President signs it into law.

Likewise, we had a vote a few minutes ago about a decision made by the administration to delist a Russian company after some changes were made to the ownership structure. You may disagree with it or agree with it, but the bottom line is, that the reason the vote happened is we passed a law that said within 30 days of it being enacted, the Congress could act to disapprove. That is the way our constitutional system works.

So despite our sharp disagreements, despite our arguments, despite what appears outwardly to the country and many in the world as a sign of division and weakness, the result may not be

anything we support--or maybe it is--but at its core, let's remind ourselves that the reason this is happening is because everyone involved, no matter how much they appear to dislike each other or how much they disagree, they are willing to live within the letter and the law of the Constitution of the United States of America.

Venezuela

Imagine an alternative for a moment. Imagine if the President, frustrated by Congress's continuing unwillingness to fund one of his priorities on border security, frustrated by a decision in Congress to disapprove of a decision he made regarding sanctions, decided not only was he going to ignore Congress, but he was going to stop paying them, he was going to jail its Members, and he was going to create an alternative Congress, which he handpicked and controlled.

That sounds farfetched. That sounds clearly unconstitutional, but there are parts of this world where those kinds of things are happening, and one of them is in our hemisphere. What I have just described to you is exactly what has happened in the nation of Venezuela beginning as early as 2013.

What has happened there is that the supposed President--actual dictator--of the country, frustrated that the democratically elected national assembly would not support his initiatives to control the country, decided to create an alternative--what they call a constituent assembly--an alternative congress. They no longer pay the national assembly members at all. They have no staffing; they have no budget; they are hardly allowed to meet; and several of them have been jailed.

As part of this process of replacing the national assembly or at least ignoring them and giving no force of law to what they vote on and creating this alternative national assembly called the constituent assembly, completely outside their Constitution, with no basis in law-- that entity, that organism, called for an election, a new election for President. It was a snap election designed to not allow the opposition to organize in time, an election in which they control all the television stations, in which people had to show an ID card in order to vote, and that ID card also happened to be the card that got your family food and medicine--the limited amounts people are getting--not a fair election in any way.

The result is, last May, Maduro ``wins'' this ``fraudulent'' election, and the first day of the term of this fraudulent Presidency was last week.

Rightfully, the President of the United States, along with leaders from multiple other countries--including Colombia, Brazil, Canada, and dozens of countries around the world--have said Maduro is an illegitimate President under the Constitution of Venezuela: The election you held isn't free and fair. The election you held was authorized by an organism that is not recognized under the Constitution. You are not the real President. You are a fraud, and the only reason why you are in office is because you are threatening to jail or kill the people who are willing to raise this point against you.

The administration went further, and they said the national assembly of Venezuela is the only constitutionally, democratically elected government in the country.

The statements we have made in the last week are entirely rooted in the rule of law and entirely rooted in the Venezuelan Constitution, and they are not unilateral actions. These statements have been supported by other countries in the region, including Venezuela's neighbors.

If, in fact, we are basing our public policy on the Constitution of Venezuela, there is one more provision we cannot ignore; that is, a provision in the Constitution that says that when there is a vacancy in the Presidency and the Vice Presidency, the President of Venezuela is the President of the national assembly.

We have a similar line of secession in the United States. In the absence of the President or the Vice President, the Speaker of the House automatically becomes the President of the United States. They might have a swearing-in ceremony, but by law that absence triggers the Presidency of the Speaker of the House--third in the line, followed by No. 4 in line, the President pro tempore of the Senate.

They have a similar outline in Venezuela under their Constitution. So it stands to reason that if our policy is that Maduro and his Vice President are illegitimate because they were elected in an extra- constitutional, fraudulent election, then clearly the Presidency of Venezuela is vacant. And if we are rooting our support for the National Assembly as the only constitutionally and legitimately elected body in the country, then we must respect the fact that that Constitution automatically passes the title of ``President'' to the President of the National Assembly.

What I come to the floor today to ask is that the administration-- hopefully in concert with Brazil and Canada and Columbia and other countries around the world--simply recognize what the Venezuelan Constitution clearly lays out. There is no President in Venezuela right now that has been democratically elected, and via their own Constitution, the current President of Venezuela, pending a new election, is Juan Guaido, the President of the National Assembly.

This is entirely rooted, as I said, in rule of law and under the Venezuelan Constitution. It doesn't even require Mr. Guaido to assume the office; it automatically is bestowed upon him. It is a critical thing for us to do in order to begin to build a better future for Venezuela, along with our partners in the region.

I think the next actions that should be followed after that happens is that Mr. Guaido name a cabinet and name leaders to run the military.

From the perspective of the United States, since we have recognized the legitimate Presidency of the National Assembly's President, pending a new election, I think the time has come to expel the Maduro-appointed Ambassadors and allow the new constitutional President to appoint replacements.

The frozen assets of the Venezuelan Government should be put at the disposal of legitimate government so they can use them to conduct a free and fair election and also use them to begin to rebuild the country.

The opportunity exists now to work with the new President, pending the new election, to begin laying out plans to deliver humanitarian aid right now, along with our partners in the region in the world, but also to help put together a package of assistance to help Venezuela rebuild a country decimated by the current dictatorship.

These are bold moves, but they are entirely rooted in the rule of law, entirely justified under the Venezuelan Constitution, and will be clear evidence that we will not stand by idly as democracy in the region is wiped out by this growing trend around the world of authoritarians assuming the vestiges of democracy--holding elections that aren't real elections, having parliamentary bodies that aren't real--in essence, dressing the part of democrats but behaving like dictators.

I strongly urge this administration publicly--and I have done so privately--to move quickly to recognize the President of the National Assembly of Venezuela, Juan Guaido, as the interim President of that country pending a transition to a new, free and fair election, and I hope this is an action we will take in concert with our partners in the region who recognize the exact same thing.

There is a window of opportunity here to shine the light of freedom and liberty through our actions, and I hope we move expeditiously in pursuit of that goal. And to the Venezuelan people--that they may know that we are standing with them, that we have been given a concrete opportunity to defend their aspirations for freedom and a better future but also to defend their Constitution.

To military officers in Venezuela who swore to uphold and defend their Constitution, now is the opportunity for you to abandon the current direction of the country and assume your responsibility that you have sworn to uphold, and that is the constitutional provisions of that country.

I believe with all my heart and I have every reason to believe without any doubt that this administration and this government, along with this Congress, stand ready to work hand in hand with the people of Venezuela to restore a rightful democracy and empower that country to head in the right direction. I urge the administration to move quickly to take the first step on our part to facilitate that. It is, as I said,

the last, best chance we have before it potentially becomes too late and the dark cloud of tyranny settles upon Venezuela the way it has over Cuba and increasingly over Nicaragua now for over two generations.

I urge the President and his administration to do what only they are empowered to do under our Constitution; that is, recognize the rightful heads of state of other nations.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, in a few minutes here--in 45 minutes or so--the Senate is going to vote to decide whether we want to begin debate on the bill that is before us, S. 1, Strengthening America's Security in the Middle East Act of 2019. I remind everybody of why we began with this bill.

I don't know what the number is, but I would say the overwhelming majority of the Members of the Senate did not agree when the President decided to pull us out of Syria for various different reasons. Everybody was asking us: Well, why don't you guys do something about it? As you know, it is difficult. The Congress cannot order the President to take military action. It can authorize it, it can fund it, and it can defund it, but it cannot compel it. That is the role of the Commander in Chief. There are some things we can do. However, because there are things we were concerned about with his decision, there are things we can do to sort of deal with the consequences of what, I believe, would be a mistake, and this bill endeavors to do that.

We went through and said: Let's find some bills that would help our allies in the region--Israel, Jordan--and that deal with the human rights catastrophe in Syria. Let's find things that are bipartisan and have widespread support so that we are not starting with something controversial. Then let's put it all together in one bill so that the country will be able to see that the Senate is engaged in the foreign policy of this country and is acting out its constitutional role as a check and balance on the Executive.

That is what we did. No good deed goes unpunished, though, because as that bill was filed, apparently, the Democratic leader and others in the leadership asked their Members to vote against even beginning debate on a bill that an overwhelming number of them supported, that a majority of the Democrats supported. They asked them to vote not to proceed on the bill, and the argument is because of the government shutdown.

I still don't know how it makes any sense to respond to a government shutdown by shutting down the Senate. In essence, why did we even come up here this week? It appears they are not making any progress on the negotiations, and we are not moving on any bills or legislation. I don't know if it gives people any comfort to know that at least the Senate is shut down too. I don't know how that fixes the government shutdown situation. This should be a place that can walk and chew gum at the same time, meaning a place that works on solving and ending this shutdown, which is bad for everybody, that works on securing our borders, which is something we need to do for our country, but that also works on dealing with something like this, especially as timely as the decision is that was just made last month and the threats that are facing our allies in the region. That is what this bill is about.

We are going to have another vote here for the second time this week. So

that everybody understands, this vote is not even in favor of or against the bill; it is just to the question of whether we can start debate on this bill. I hope a few more Democrats will join us so that we can get the 60 votes we need just to begin debating the bill. If you still want to make your point at the end of the day, then go ahead and vote against it or whatever. I hope you don't, but let's at least begin debate on it. We will see what happens here in about 30 minutes. My sense is that we still won't have the votes to do that, and it is unfortunate.

I do want to address two things that have been brought up with regard to this bill--one thing that has been brought up and one element of the bill that I hope will change people's minds in terms of beginning the debate on it.

First, let me talk about a provision in this bill that deals with BDS. BDS--boycott, divestment and sanctions--is an international effort to wage economic war on Israel in order to punish it for its supposed treatment of Palestinians. It boycotts companies that do business in Israel until they cut ties. It boycotts or pressures banks and investment firms until they divest of any investments that help Israel. It then asks governments to impose sanctions on Israel. That is BDS.

Some people support it. There are two newly elected Members of the House who openly support it. I assume that is their right. I think they are wrong, but that is their right. The vast majority of people do not support it.

What has happened across America is that there are States and counties and cities that have decided they don't support BDS. It is not illegal and we are not going to make it illegal if you want to be a company that participates in BDS. Yet we--the government, the cities, and the States--are not going to buy services or goods from any company that is boycotting Israel. All this bill does is protect them from lawsuits if they make that decision.

The argument against this has been--and I have seen this now in numerous statements from those on the other side of the aisle--that it infringes on the First Amendment rights of individuals. I don't know what bill does that, but it isn't this one.

To begin with, this bill doesn't even apply to individuals. Individuals can do whatever they want. If you don't want to buy stock in a company that does business in Israel, I think it is shortsighted, but no one is stopping you from doing that. If you want to divest your investments from companies that do business in Israel, no one is stopping you from doing that. If you don't want to shop at or buy from companies that do business with Israel, that is not illegal. This doesn't apply to any individuals.

By the way, it doesn't even make it illegal for companies to make that decision. This is not banning participating in BDS. You have every right to support it. You are wrong, but you have every right to support it. You have every right to carry it out if you are a company or an individual.

This bill does not apply to individuals. Any time people say they are protecting the individual First Amendment rights of Americans by opposing this legislation, I don't know what they are talking about because this does not apply to individuals.

All this says is to go ahead and do it. If you, company X, want to boycott Israel or divest investments from Israel, you can, but the people who disagree with you can boycott and divest from you. You see, free speech is a two-way street. If you want to proclaim something or say something, you have every right to do it, but the people who disagree with you have a right to do that as well. If there is a First Amendment right to companies to boycott or divest from Israel, then there has to be a First Amendment right to boycott or divest from those companies.

If you oppose this bill, then you are in favor of shielding from counter-boycotts anyone who decides to take these actions. That is what you are for, which is de facto support for BDS, because what you are basically saying is to go ahead and boycott Israel and divest from Israel, but no one can do that to you. That is not what the First Amendment is. The First Amendment protects your right to speech, and it protects from government infringement an individual's right to speak. It does not protect you from people who disagree with you. It does not protect you from people who speak out against you. So if you are a boycotter, you yourself can be boycotted. If you are a divestor, people can divest from you. I am talking about the elected representatives of our cities and counties. If the members of that community do not agree with that decision, they can vote them out of office.

Why does a city or a county have to be forced to buy products from companies that are undertaking a foreign policy action, which is what this is? This is not an effort to influence domestic policy; this is an effort to influence the policies of a foreign country. Why should a city or a county be forced by law to have to do business with those that a city or a county or a State disagrees with? That is all this bill is.

When people go around talking about how this infringes on the First Amendment rights of individuals, it is just not honest. It is just not true. This doesn't even apply to individuals. In fact, the bill says very clearly in writing--right there--that nothing under this act shall be construed to infringe upon the First Amendment rights of any American.

As they continue to say that, just know that this bill only applies to cities, counties, and States being able to not buy things from companies. This doesn't give you the right to fire an employee who posts a pro-BDS thing on Facebook. This doesn't give you the right to refuse to sell a home to or provide housing for or discriminate in any way against individuals who support BDS. This doesn't give anyone the right to put you in jail for supporting BDS. It doesn't do anything to infringe on anyone's First Amendment right. All it does is protect the First Amendment right to be against BDS and to do to the boycotters what the boycotters are doing to Israel. It is a two-way street. Those are the facts. If you are hiding behind that in order to oppose this bill, you are not being frank about what the bill does.

The second part of this bill that I wanted to talk about today shouldn't be controversial at all because we are all now painfully familiar with the grave humanitarian crisis we have seen in Syria. I would say and most would agree that what we have seen over the last 8 years of this conflict is the worst humanitarian crisis since the end of the Second World War. It began as anti-government protests, but it led to the fighting for political freedoms that has now escalated into a bloody civil war with a bunch of foreign fighters flowing in. It is a mess of all kinds of different groups from foreign countries and of radical jihadists.

Caught in the middle are innocent people who have been bombed and gassed. In fact, this administration has had to take action to punish militarily the Assad regime for dropping chlorine bombs and chemical weapons on civilian populations. We have seen these images of children, babies, and everyday people--bakers and plumbers and small business owners and professionals--who 1 minute were walking around and the next minute were choking to death because their own government, with the support of Russia and Iran, dropped chemical weapons on their communities and killed countless people.

Not only is this sort of activity horrifying, it is a war crime. It is a war crime to deliberately target civilian populations, and it is particularly cruel to do it with a gruesome form of death--that is, death by chemical weapon. That is what we have seen.

That is what we have seen supported, by the way, by Vladimir Putin. He knows for a fact what they are doing and doesn't care. He gives them cover, and he makes up these ridiculous stories about how it is the opposition that has done it. Everyone knows who has done it. There is zero doubt about it. That is why they don't allow inspectors to go in and find evidence and point it out. But it is abundantly clear who is doing it, and they have done it.

Even as this administration is deciding to pull out, the prospects grow and the likelihood grows every day that the people who have made these decisions will never be held accountable for what they have done. These war criminals--these savages--will never be held accountable for what they have done if trends continue the way they are going. This bill tries to address that.

The now chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, the Senator from

Idaho, Mr. Risch, filed a bill last year, called the Caesar Syria Civilian Protection Act, that is now included in this bill. I believe he will be here shortly to speak about it. It is called the Caesar bill--it has nothing to do with Rome--because it is named after a Syrian military defector. It is named after someone who was in the Syrian military whose code name was ``Caesar'' who smuggled out tens of thousands of pictures of what was going on inside of Syria, the images of the thousands of people who were killed while being detained in Syria. They were images of the torture, of the brutalization of women and innocent men and even sometimes children by the Assad regime and by those who supported them.

The pictures show the true face of what we are dealing with here--the face of an evil and criminal regime, a regime that needs to be held to account. All those who support them and are allowing them to do it should also be held accountable.

What Senator Risch's bill does is it provides the Trump administration new legal authority to bring some accountability for the people who have done this.

First, it requires a determination and a report by the Treasury on whether the Central Bank of Syria is a financial institution of primary money laundering concern. Why does that matter? Because they are using that bank to clean and launder money to fund their operations, to remain in power, and, ultimately, to gas and kill their own people.

The other thing it does is it imposes new sanctions on anyone who does business with or who provides financing to the Government of Syria, including Syrian intelligence and security services, or the Central Bank of Syria; who provides aircraft or spare aircraft parts that are used for military purposes in Syria; who does business with transportation or telecom sectors controlled by the Syrian Government; or who supports Syria's energy industry.

These aren't just about punishing them. It is about hurting them in their pocketbooks so they can't afford to put those planes up there to drop these bombs on innocent people. It gives the administration the authority to do this.

By the way, this bill also requires the administration to brief Congress. You hear them talking about holding the administration accountable and conducting oversight. This bill requires them to come before us and tell us what their plan is to deliver humanitarian aid.

By the way, I want to know how we are going to deliver humanitarian aid if there is no U.S. presence on the ground and the only people left are the Russians, the Turks, the Iranians, and the Assad regime. It would be interesting to be briefed on that plan with us not there, but it requires them to come forward and either tell us what their plan is or admit that there isn't a plan because we are not there anymore.

That is what this bill does. I would love for everyone here to support it, but before you can even vote for it, we have to start debate on it through the rules of the Senate. In about 15 minutes, we are going to vote on this thing, and there are going to be people who vote against even starting a debate on it, and the argument is that it is because of the shutdown.

I hope people reconsider. I don't understand the logic of it, but when you talk about the threats that are facing Israel, which the overwhelming majority of the Senators here say they are strong supporters of, and when you talk about the importance of Jordan and our alliance with Israel, something that every single person here basically agrees with, for the most part, and when you talk about these horrifying war crimes for which there should be some accountability, which I believe everybody here was outraged by, how does stopping a bill or refusing to move on to debating a bill that deals with those things help end the shutdown? It doesn't. It makes no sense, but, apparently, that is what some are willing to do.

They probably aren't watching at this point. They are probably off at their caucus lunches or doing something else, but I hope that over the last 48 hours, some of my colleagues on the Democratic side have thought about it and have said to themselves that it really doesn't make any sense to deal with the government shutdown by shutting down the Senate.

I hope they will reconsider and vote differently this time. If they don't, then, I am just not sure how we can explain to people why it is that we will not agree to even begin debate on something almost all of us agree on for reasons completely unrelated to it. In essence, that is what happened earlier this week and what could potentially happen here very shortly.

I actually, oftentimes, wonder what must go through the minds of visitors to the Capitol. I understand most people in America aren't watching this. Very few people probably are. I wonder. You come up here, and these groups from Close Up were here. It is a great organization. It brings high school kids up here. You try to explain to normal, regular human beings that there is a bill that 90 of the 100 Senators support, but we are not even going to be able to debate it because they are voting against debating it. They would look at you like you have three heads and say: What are you talking about? They support the bill, but they don't want to have a debate on the bill yet? Why? Because of the government shutdown. Well, what does that have to do with it?

There are no other aspects in our lives where we would do that. I have never heard that in my life. I have never heard someone say: I am not going to work today because I am upset that my favorite team lost the game yesterday, or I am not paying my bills this month because I don't like the fact that they charged me too much for changing my tires. If you did that in any part of your life, people would think you were crazy. Yet that is what is happening here.

What kind of leverage is this--that you are going to hold up a bill we all agree on as leverage to force us to negotiate? The Democratic leader and the Democratic Members know that in order for a bill to become law, it needs the support of the House, which their party controls, 60 Senators, which they can keep us from getting, and the President who will sign it. They know full well that this has nothing to do with that, but, nonetheless, a majority of them seem to be prepared to vote against even debating it.

I don't know how to explain that. I certainly don't know how to explain it to high school students up here visiting from Close Up or to anyone else, for that matter, but that is what happened earlier this week, and that is what might happen today here in a few minutes.

I hope I am wrong. I hope people have reconsidered because, honestly, this is an issue that deserves our earnest attention.

I will close with this. Please do not go around saying that Congress needs to do more to hold the administration accountable or to conduct oversight of our administration policy, when we started this Congress trying to do that and you decided to keep us from doing it for some other reason. Don't say that Congress needs to be more involved in the foreign policy of the United States, when this is exactly what we are trying to do here today and you will not let us for reasons unrelated to it.

This country needs a strong Senate more than ever before, not one that is shut down. I hope people will change their minds so we can get to work on this right now.

The Senate should be able to walk, chew gum, write, and read at the same time--or a lot of us. There are 100 people here. We should be able to do multiple things at the same time. We do it all the time.

You don't need to shut down the Senate, and you don't need to stop debate on this bill to solve the government shutdown. One has nothing to do with the other. Everyone knows that. Americans understand that. Normal people recognize that.

Let's act normal. Let's stop being weird about these things, and let's move on something like this and get the debate going, even as we work on the government shutdown and on border security.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, today I recognize Tatum Ashby, a 2018 fall intern in my Orlando office, for all of the hard work she has done for me, my staff, and the people of the State of Florida.

Tatum is a student at Southeastern University, where she is majoring in political science. She is a dedicated and diligent worker who has been devoted to getting the most out of her internship experience.

I would like to extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Tatum for all the fine work she has done and wish her continued success in the years to come.

Mr. President, today I recognize Charlie Gray, a 2018 fall intern in my Orlando office, for all of the hard work he has done for me, my staff, and the people of the State of Florida.

Charlie is a student at Rollins College, where he is majoring in environmental studies with a minor in political science. He is a dedicated and diligent worker who has been devoted to getting the most out of his internship experience.

I would like to extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Charlie for all the fine work he has done and wish him continued success in the years to come.

Mr. President, today I recognize Caroline Husebo, a 2018 fall intern in my Orlando office, for all of the hard work she has done for me, my staff, and the people of the State of Florida.

Caroline is a graduate from Circle Christian School and interned during her gap year. She is a dedicated and diligent worker who has been devoted to getting the most out of her internship experience.

I would like to extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Caroline for all the fine work she has done and wish her continued success in the years to come.

Mr. President, today I recognize Mary Park, a 2018 fall intern in my Orlando office, for all of the hard work she has done for me, my staff, and the people of the State of Florida.

Mary is a graduate of the University of Florida, where she is majored in political science and African-American studies. She is a dedicated and diligent worker who has been devoted to getting the most out of her internship experience.

I would like to extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Mary for all the fine work she has done and wish her continued success in the years to come.

Mr. President, today I recognize Victoria Scott, a 2018 fall intern in my Orlando office, for all of the hard work she has done for me, my staff, and the people of the State of Florida.

Victoria is a student at Rollins College, where she is majoring in political science and international relations. She is a dedicated and diligent worker who has been devoted to getting the most out of her internship experience.

I would like to extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Victoria for all the fine work she has done and wish her continued success in the years to come.

Mr. President, today I recognize Ryleigh Wogoman, a 2018 fall intern in my Orlando office, for all of the hard work she has done for me, my staff, and the people of the State of Florida.

Ryleigh is a student at the University of Central Florida, where she is majoring in political science. She is a dedicated and diligent worker who has been devoted to getting the most out of her internship experience.

I would like to extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Ryleigh for all the fine work she has done and wish her continued success in the years to come.

Mr. President, I wish to recognize the first Small Business of the Week of the 116th Congress. Each week this Congress, I will honor a small business that exemplifies the hard work and perseverance of the American entrepreneur. The great State of Florida is home to businesses of all types, from family-run farms in Ocala to aerospace machinists in Cape Canaveral. Today, it is my distinct pleasure to honor a small business with a strong commitment to the quality of its products and a desire to give back to its community. As chairman of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, it is my pleasure to recognize Oceana Coffee Roasters as this year's first Small Business of the Week.

Amy and Scott Angelo founded Oceana Coffee Roasters in 2009 with only a $35 coffee roaster, converted from a popcorn machine, and the goal of bringing freshly roasted coffee to their area. Located in Tequesta, FL, Amy and Scott founded the company after they were unable to find a local coffee roaster that produced fresh, small-batch coffee. Seeing an opportunity, the Angelos began by roasting just a quarter-cup of coffee at a time, experimenting with different types of beans and roasting techniques.

From a popcorn popper in their kitchen, to roasting 50,000 pounds of beans a year, the Angelos have remained focused on the details of producing high-quality, small-batch, whole bean and ground coffee. In order to meet their high standards, Scott and Amy learned all they could about how coffee beans are grown, where the best beans originate, and how to bring out the best flavor in each type of bean. They also researched the fair trade coffee process, how coffee is harvested and transported, and the logistics of importing beans to their Florida small business. Through their diligent study and a trial and error process, the Angelos harnessed their entrepreneurial spirit to understand their customers' desires and make a product they are proud of. In 2016, the Palm Beach North Chamber of Commerce recognized Oceana Coffee as the Small Business of the Year and SCORE of Palm Beach County recognized them for entrepreneurial excellence. Also in 2016, they were the overall winner for the Golden Bean North America Award, which is the world's largest coffee roaster competition.

As the business has grown, the company has periodically added new coffee

varieties from around the world to its product line. Instead of focusing on large production runs of one type of coffee, Oceana produces small batches of shade-grown, Guatemalan, Ethiopian, and Costa Rican coffee for all types of coffee consumers. Their success has also led to expansion, with Amy and Scott adding a second location in Palm Beach County while increasing e-commerce sales and direct shipments to reach approximately 100 wholesale customers.

The Angelos are committed to their community and doing right by the people they do business with. Every quarter, Oceana makes a donation to a charitable organization voted on by its customers under an initiative they call Cup of Kindness. Oceana Coffee also gives back by offering internships to adults with autism by partnering with Jupiter, FL-based Els for Autism so that affected individuals can gain workforce experience. Additionally, the Angelos provide a platform to local artists, authors, and other small businesses in the area. Each month, the shop hosts a showcase to help these entrepreneurs gain exposure.

The Angelos care about the community of growers they work with, as they purchase their coffee beans from small, fair-trade farmers that they interact with directly and visit regularly. They have also made a commitment to reduce waste through the use of reusable straws and recyclable cutlery and containers.

Oceana Coffee Roasters has found its niche and expanded as a company, while keeping its commitment to quality and principles. The Angelos' love of quality coffee, commitment to their community, and painstaking review of the coffee making process has made the company a leader in its community and created a loyal customer base. Again, I would like to congratulate Scott, Amy, and all of the employees at Oceana Coffee Roasters for being named the Small Business of the Week. I wish you continued success in your future endeavors.

Mr. President, what is before us right now is S. 1. For those who are here today watching or who are at home or will watch this later and are wondering what the Senate is doing, other than coming down here and giving speeches, what we are trying to do is start debate on a bill, on S. 1.

S. 1 is the Senate effort to respond specifically not just to general events that are happening in the Middle East but, in particular, the decision made a few weeks ago that the United States would be leaving Syria and our presence there.

At the time when the decision was made, I told everybody I thought it was a bad idea. A lot of people agreed, and there are a lot of reasons why it was a bad idea. Although I do think it is important anytime we ask the American people to send their young men and women abroad--in the case of Syria, it is about 2,000 special operators working alongside tens of thousands of Kurdish and Syrian democratic forces. Anytime we spend money or send Americans abroad to risk their lives, the American people deserve for us to go to them and justify why it is we should be doing it or continue to do it. That is certainly the case with Syria.

So I don't agree with the decision, but I do think it has given the Senate and those of us who disagree with that decision an opportunity to go out and tell people why it is that it is important. That is a broader topic, and I will have more to say about that in the days to come, but one of the reasons why it is important is because the U.S. withdrawal from Syria will have a dramatic impact on the security of Israel.

Now, again, anytime we ask the American people to support another country with money or diplomatic support or anything that it might be-- weapons--we should justify it. We should never take for granted why it is that it is important that we support that other country.

In the case of Israel, at a time when very few things enjoy bipartisan support, support for Israel has wide bipartisan support in Congress and across the country, and rightfully so. Our support of the State of Israel is founded both on morality and our national interest.

On the issue of morality, the State of Israel is very unique. It was founded for a very specific purpose in the aftermath of the holocaust, in which millions of Jews lost their lives. It was vowed that never again would the Jewish people not have a place to go and seek refuge or live in a place of peace and security. The State of Israel was established to be that homeland for the Jewish people. It is unique in the fact that it was given birth by an international organization. It is unique in the world in that regard.

The second reason we should support Israel is because it is in our national interest. Israel is everything we wish more countries in the Middle East and around the world were. They are a pro-American, free enterprise democracy. I would ask you, for a moment only, to imagine what the world would be like, how much easier our foreign policy would be if there were more countries in that part of the world that were pro-American, free enterprise democracies. We have one, the Jewish State of Israel. That is why we should support it.

From its very birth, Israel has faced threats to its very existence, but I would say today that the threats it faces are the greatest ones it has had to confront in almost a half century. The impetus for much of that threat comes from one place, and that is Iran, a country which almost as a matter of course as a government chants ``Death to America'' and ``Death to Israel'' on a regular basis. It is one of the stated purposes of that government, to destroy the State of Israel, but they aren't just words; they are actions.

I have a map of Iran and Israel. Of course, notice that Israel is the tiny little area on this map. At its narrowest point, Israel is 9 miles wide. This is not a large country in terms of the map area. It is unreal how much of the world's attention, both from international organizations and international debates, focuses on this one tiny country, but there it is, the very small nation that you see right there in yellow.

There is Iran. It is, clearly, larger in terms of on the map and in reality. Iran isn't simply a rhetorical enemy of Israel; it is taking action to encircle Israel and to threaten its security.

It begins with engagement in its missile program. Iran is developing and has developed ballistic missiles with a range that reaches every part of Israel. Here is the bottom line: Iran can lodge ballistic missiles that reach any city in Israel right now, which is why their nuclear ambitions are so dangerous.

Imagine that at some point in the future, Iran is able to attach a nuclear warhead to one of those ballistic missiles--a country whose leaders on a regular basis chant ``Death to Israel'' with a nuclear weapon that can reach Israel. Well, that is a proposition nobody wants to see come about. That is why the Iranian ambition to have nuclear weapons is so dangerous. They already possess that as it is today. But they don't simply directly target Israel; they also--I believe directly--they hide behind surrogates in the region, who do their bidding. These surrogates have for many years been found in southern Lebanon among Hezbollah. We will talk about them in a moment. They are a surrogate that works at the behest of the Iranian Government.

There have been conflicts--in fact, wars--between Israel and Hezbollah in which there have been massive military attacks coming from Lebanon, rocket strikes into Israel and Israel's response. The last one was in the 2005-2006 time period, and it could happen again. In fact, I believe the conditions are ripe for it to happen again. It could happen at any moment for a variety of different reasons that will have to be part of another speech because time doesn't permit. Suffice it to say, it is a dangerous proposition.

How does Hezbollah get this weaponry? They get this weaponry from Iran. It is shipped through Syria. The U.S. disengagement from Syria will make it easier for Iran and the IRGC and Hezbollah to bring those weapons into southern Lebanon to strike at Israel at some point in the future. In addition to that, Iran is also present on the ground in Syria, which, as you see, borders Israel. So not only does Iran help Hezbollah, but Hezbollah and Iran are in Syria, on Israel's very border in the same region in the south, and a U.S. withdrawal will make it easier for Iran to grow their presence there. So now Israel faces a threat from Hezbollah, from southern Lebanon, and a threat from Iran and Hezbollah in Syria.

We also see that the Iranian influence has grown in Iraq. The second leading political movement in the current Iraqi Parliament is a Shia group, directly aligned in Iran, with growing political influence. They want to kick America out of there. Believe me, they want to turn Iraq into another base of operation from which Israel can be targeted.

Down here in Yemen, the Houthis are an agent of Iran. You may say: Well, that is kind of far. It isn't in the sense that those missiles and rockets could reach there as well, but it also allows

them the opportunity to shut off transit here at this chokepoint on the bottom of the Red Sea, which could directly impact, ultimately, the ability for trade and commerce for Israel and for the region writ large.

Obviously, we see a growing Iranian presence in Bahrain and Kuwait.

Suffice it to say that Iran is carrying out an effort to grow its influence and encircle who it views as its enemies--the Sunnis in Saudi Arabia but more than anyone else, the Israelis.

This is not the only threat, by the way, that Israel faces. It also faces growing violence and resistance in the Judea-Samaria region-- often called by some the West Bank--and Gaza, where there have been upticks in violence.

I failed to mention that in southern Lebanon, Hezbollah routinely builds tunnels from Lebanon into Israel. The purpose of that is to be able to sneak fighters right into Israel through those tunnels so they can conduct commando raids and kill civilians--not military personnel but civilians.

The threats Israel is facing are growing every single day.

I want to talk specifically for a moment about the missile threat to Israel. Here are the ranges of these rockets. There was an Israel- Hezbollah war. The next one will be far deadlier. It will be far deadlier for a couple of reasons.

The first is that Hezbollah can build these rockets; they no longer need to ship them in. Over the last decade and a half, they have built the capability to construct these rockets themselves.

The second is that they have more of them. That matters because Israel has a very good missile defense system, but you can overwhelm a missile defense system with volume, meaning 100 rockets are launched, and you knock down 99 of them, but 1 of them gets through and hits a population center and kills 10,000 people. Hezbollah now has that capability.

These rockets are also precision-guided. They are not just lobbing them over and they hit what they hit. They can launch precision-guided munitions to target specific areas within Israel. The ranges of these rockets they now possess are stunning. As an example, if you look at this little ring here, it tells you how many seconds it would take from launch to impact, meaning 10 to 25 seconds before they could hit, for example, the area of Nazareth and Tiberias. Moving farther down, you see 35 to 50 seconds. Farther down, around Tel Aviv, 75 seconds. Jerusalem, just south of that is probably another 10 seconds added, 85 seconds. A hundred and twenty seconds. A hundred and fifty-five seconds.

Imagine for a moment that you are visiting Israel or live in Israel or are a student studying there--whatever it might be--and one of these launches comes in, a barrage of 1,000 rockets launched. You literally have 35 to 50 seconds--less than 2 minutes. There is no country in the world that can mobilize people to get out of the way in 2 minutes. These are their population centers. This is the threat that faces them right now, and that is just from Lebanon. Imagine that same capability I just described also existing in Syria. Imagine it all being launched simultaneously from Syria, from Lebanon, and from Iran. Now you begin to see the construct of a plan to destroy this tiny nation and why it is so critical that the United States support them in fighting for their existence. The threat is extraordinary.

There is one more element to it. There is now a global effort called boycott, divestment, and sanctions, BDS. It is designed to wage economic war on Israel--in essence, to pressure companies to boycott Israeli companies and people who do business in Israel until they stop, to pressure investment funds and banks to no longer do investments in anything related to Israel, and to pressure governments around the world to sanction Israel. That is what this effort is about. It is to undermine them economically as well. It is economic warfare and being waged at every level. It is working. People are adopting this around the world, and there are some who advocate for it here. We have recently seen in the news a number of companies that decided not to do business in certain parts of Israel because of the pressure from that movement.

By the way, I would point out that they are not just boycotting the economy; there are people who won't do concerts, and they won't play the Israeli sports teams. They want the Israeli Government kicked out of the international committee for different sports, including soccer-- the Olympic committee. They boycott cultural events. They boycott universities. They are pressuring universities to cut ties with any university in Israel over all this. It is an effort to destroy Israel culturally and economically in a way that works in combination with the effort to destroy it physically. It is a very real threat.

We have tried to confront both of these issues in bipartisan legislation. I have up here a chart, and I will talk about it in a moment. Twenty-six States in this country have tried to do something to condemn BDS. I will get to that in a moment before I tell you the ``what.''

I told you why it is so important that we stand with Israel and the threats that Israel faces. Now I will describe what this bill does. This bill has four components to it. One deals with the human rights violation in Syria. We will discuss that further, perhaps tomorrow. The second component of this bill deals with Jordan, which is one of the neighbors that Israel has that is actually critical to its security. One of the best things that happened to Israel security was the deal with Jordan and Egypt that allowed them, at their periphery, to have countries that at least recognize them and are not out to destroy them. Jordan faces its own threats from some of the same actors, by the way. And add ISIS to that.

The other two elements are we took these two bills that have bipartisan support--cosponsored by Republicans and Democrats--we combined them with the other two bills, which also had such support, into one bill. That is S. 1. We viewed it as an opportunity for the Senate and for Congress to weigh in on foreign policy at a time when we believe that all of the threats to Israel that I just described are made worse by the decision to withdraw from Syria. That is the bill that is before us.

Today, I want to talk about the two components that impact Israel directly. The first is basically the United States-Israel Security Assistance Authorization Act. That is a fancy title for a bill that I coauthored with my very good friend and another strong supporter of Israel, Senator Chris Coons of Delaware, who sits on the other side of the aisle. Again, I told you this is a bipartisan issue.

This bill has 72 cosponsors here in the Senate. It passed overwhelmingly by a voice vote. We didn't even have to have a rollcall vote. It was just voice-voted out, meaning there was unanimous consent--no one objected--on the 1st of August of last year. It passed in the House, with an amendment, on September 12. Then it was hotlined for a potential voice vote here on October 11, 2018.

What does this bill do? The first thing it does is it lays out a statement of policy. Let me tell you why that is important. People say: Statement of policy words--why do they matter? They matter in the region because one of the things that would encourage Hezbollah or any of Israel's enemies to perhaps attack it is the belief that the United States is no longer as committed to Israel's security as we once were. They could miscalculate. They read these headlines about one or two people in America saying something negative toward Israel, and they think that somehow we are weakening in our resolve. I know that sounds silly to us, but to people involved in that over there, it is not. They read into this, and they miscalculate it. They make errors. A miscalculation here could lead to an all-out war that could cost the lives of thousands of people and potentially lead to the destruction of Israel, along with other nations in the process.

It is important for us to make very clear that our commitment to Israel is unwavering. It is especially important in light of the decision to withdraw from Syria because what a lot of these countries-- including Iran--are reading into this is, U.S. commitment to the Middle East is no longer very strong. Not only are they not committed to being involved in the region, they are actually withdrawing any of the assets they could be using to be supportive of their allies in the region.

So these statements of policy are important. What we put in this bill lays out a statement of policy that says:

It shall be the policy of the United States to provide

assistance to the Government of Israel in order to support

funding for cooperative programs to develop, produce, and

procure missile, rocket, projectile, and other defense

capabilities to help Israel meets its security needs and to

help develop and enhance United States defense capabilities.

What that means is, this is a cooperation. Israel may be developing some of these technologies because they have an immediate need. We would benefit from that technology too. If Israel develops the next generation of missile defense systems, we would use that as well in the case where we were threatened by it. That is that statement of policy.

The bill also authorizes U.S. security assistance in foreign military financing at no less than $3.3 billion a year for the next decade. That, by the way, is simply the language from a memorandum of understanding that was signed by the Obama administration and Israel. We put that in the statute, and we authorized it.

This is very important. It extends a war reserve stockpile authority and extends loan guarantees to Israel through 2023. Israel has never defaulted on a U.S.-backed loan guarantee, and this program helps provide rainy-day insurance on Israel's stability given the many threats it is facing.

It authorizes the President to transfer precision-guided munitions and related defense articles and services to Israel as necessary for legitimate self-defense. That means this weaponry wouldn't be sent, but it would be put on reserve status--assuming it doesn't impact our readiness--and it would be made available to Israel in case a war broke out and their reserves were quickly depleted. If they start running out of rockets, munitions, and defense apparatus, the United States has set aside weaponry that we are ready to rapidly send to them so they can defend themselves. They pay for this. But at least they know it is sitting there. We don't have to scramble to find it, it takes 2 weeks to get there, and by then, the war is over.

It has other requirements. It expresses the sense of Congress that the President should prescribe procedures for rapidly acquiring and deploying what we need to support production of these precision-guided munitions for our U.S. counterterror mission.

It requires the President to report no later than 120 days to the appropriate congressional committees on Israel's eligibility for the strategic trade authorization exception to certain export control licensing, including the reasons as to why Israel has not yet been included in the list of countries eligible for the strategic trade authorization exception.

This one is also very critical. This is a new threat that is emerging. It authorizes the President to enter into a cooperative agreement--meaning it benefits them and us--to counter unmanned aerial vehicles and the threat they pose. The reason for that is that on February 10 of last year, an Iranian drone was shot down by Israel. Everyone has every reason to believe that these unmanned aerial vehicles are the next threat that will be deployed both in the battlefield and potentially by terrorists. We would work with Israel, which faces an immediate threat, to develop counters to that. Today, we don't have good counters to that.

Above all else, it makes one more very clear policy statement that has been the linchpin of our support for Israel, which is that it is the policy of the United States to ensure that Israel maintains its ability to counter and defeat any credible conventional military or emerging threat from any state or possible coalition of states or from nonstate actors while sustaining minimal damage and casualties through the use of superior military means possessed in sufficient quantities, including weapons, command, control, communication, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance capabilities that in their technical characteristics are superior in capability to those of such other individual or possible coalition states or nonstate actors.

Here is what this means: It is the policy of the United States to ensure that Israel's weapons and systems are better than anyone else's in the region. Whatever anybody else has we will sell to Israel and allow it to access and acquire something better so that it will always have an advantage. If anyone in that region believes it could beat Israel in a war, one will try to beat Israel in a war. That was the history from its very birth, and that was the lesson of 1967 and the lesson of 1973. We don't want that to happen again. That is what this bill does. That is why it has so much support. That is why it is so important for us to move to debate on this issue.

It also tackles this economic warfare. What is included in this is a bill we filed last year with Senator Manchin, called the Combating BDS Act. By the way, last year, the Banking chairman, Senator Crapo of Idaho, and the ranking member, Senator Brown of Ohio, discharged this bill from their committee, and they didn't even require a hearing. They did it late last year after running it by all of their members, and we tried to pass it in the Senate by a voice vote but were unable to because of one Senator who blocked it.

Let me start by thanking Senators Crapo and Brown for working hard to advance this bill last year, as well as for coauthoring with me last year the new Hezbollah sanctions law, known as the Hizballah International Financing Prevention Amendments Act of 2018. We strengthened the sanctions on Hezbollah that we had passed in the 2 years previous.

First of all, let me tell you what it doesn't do. It does not outlaw BDS. If you are an American company and you want to boycott or divest from Israel, this doesn't make it illegal. It doesn't stop you from doing it. It only says that if there is some city or county or State in this country that wants to support Israel, it has a right to say it is not going to buy services or goods from any company that is boycotting or divesting from Israel. That is all it does. It gives cities and counties like these--26 States--the opportunity to have their elected officials who respond to the people of those States or cities or counties who elected them to make decisions that they are not going to do business with people who don't do business with Israel and boycott Israel. In essence, it allows us to boycott the boycotters.

Some say that it is an infringement on the First Amendment. First, I will tell you that the First Amendment protects speech and actions that function in the form of speech. This is not an effort to silence speech nor is this an effort, by the way, to defeat an effort per se. It is an effort to defend the right to counterspeak. The First Amendment is a two-way street. You have a right to express your views on something, but others have a right to respond. You have a right to boycott a country, and people have a right to boycott you. That is what this law allows them to do. It is that simple.

By the way, this is not some domestic debate. They are not trying to influence some law that we are passing here with BDS. They are not trying to influence your opinions on a topic. They are trying to influence the foreign policy of another country. This is not traditional free speech. The courts have weighed in on this in the past, and the courts have given Congress and the executive branch extraordinary discretion on the setting of foreign policy. When a company weighs in on BDS, it is not trying to influence a domestic debate or a topic of opinion here in the U.S. political system; it is trying to punish a nation-state so that the state changes its policies in another country.

There is an open question about whether the First Amendment even covers that. The bill basically says, notwithstanding whatever is in the bill, nothing in the bill shall be construed to invade or to hurt anyone's First Amendment rights. So anyone who hides behind the idea that this is designed to silence speech isn't being truthful.

This does not outlaw BDS. If you want to boycott or divest from Israel, you can. It is legal. We are not outlawing that as that would be an infringement. All we are saying is, if you are going to boycott Israel, those who support Israel will have a right to boycott you. That includes cities and counties and States that don't want to buy stuff from you. That is what this bill does. That is why it enjoys this broad bipartisan support.

Some have asked me to take it out of this bill and have said it is the reason we are not moving to it. At least, that is what I heard earlier. Now there is another reason. It is absurd. Vote against it and then justify it, but if you

are trying to shield the boycotters, that is the de facto support of BDS, in my opinion, and I think it is important for us to pass it.

I emphasize again that this was not overly controversial 2 weeks ago. Look at the list of people who supported this bill last year: the majority leader, the minority leader, the Foreign Relations Committee chairman, the ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee, the Senate Finance Committee chairman, and the ranking member of the Finance Committee. Democratic and Republican leaders on multiple committees and at the very top of this Chamber support this bill. Yet, somehow, we can't even proceed to debate on this bill.

You may say, ``Well, wait until the shutdown is over,'' because that is the argument that is being used now--that we shouldn't move to anything until we deal with the shutdown. I don't like the shutdown. I hope it ends tonight or tomorrow morning. Yet this is not just any other issue. There is a credible argument to be made that there is a time sensitivity to this because the enemies of Israel aren't sitting around, waiting. This could happen at any moment. These aren't the kinds of things that build up. Hezbollah's desire to destroy Israel is longstanding, and what they choose to do about it will not wait for the U.S. Senate to deal with other topics. This is an immediate threat. It is right before us, and it deserves our immediate reaction.

This could rapidly escalate, but I am not going to take up another 30 minutes to describe all of the scenarios under which that could happen. Yet I will give you one that is not out of the realm of possibility. Now that they know that the United States is going to be withdrawing from Syria, the Israelis could decide--and, I believe, rightfully so-- that for their own defense, they will need to start attacking even more inside Syria. Regarding those supply lanes that Iran is using, every time they see a truck with rockets on it, they are going to blow up the truck. Every time they see IRGC or Hezbollah militias forming anywhere near their border, they are going to hit them. They are now going to step up those attacks because we are not there anymore. Iran is going to fill that void, so they are going to have to step up their attacks.

At some point, Iran and/or Hezbollah is going to respond to those stepped-up attacks with attacks of its own, at which point Israel is going to respond with even bigger attacks. Then the cycle of escalation will begin. Then very quickly--before you know it--in this region, we could have a shooting war, not a war of words and not a vote at the U.N., but rockets and missiles being fired at one another from Lebanon or from Syria into Israel, with Israel's responding back into Syria and Israel's responding back into Lebanon. In fact, Israel has said that all of Lebanon is on the target list since now Hezbollah and the current President of Lebanon have created a political alliance. You also have these other countries running around inside Syria, including the Russians now and the Turks up to the north. There is the potential that their troops would get caught in the firefight in their eliciting a response back to Israel. Before you know it, we could have a multistate, multiparty, all-out war in the Middle East. The possibility of that happening is not farfetched.

I say this to you today with no pleasure. There will be another Israel-Hezbollah war. It is just a matter of time. Yet the next one will be far more deadly. It is incumbent upon us to do what we can. There are things we cannot do, and there are things we can do. It is incumbent upon us to prolong it and to prevent it for as long as possible. One of the things we can do to help prevent that or to extend the time before that happens is to make it very clear to Hezbollah and Iran and everyone else that if they take on Israel, we will support Israel. That is what this bill is designed to do. It is not just to send that message but to put in place that reality.

Given the tinderbox that is the Middle East and given the unpredictability of the various actors involved, particularly those that hate Israel, why would we not move immediately to address something like that? Why are we not capable of voting on something that will probably get 80 votes here and still deal with the government shutdown?

The last time we had a government shutdown, we were still voting on bills that had nothing to do with the government shutdown. When the other party was in charge, we were doing that. There is no precedent for doing it. I believe that it is possible for us to do both, and that is what we should do. This isn't tax reform or healthcare reform. This is something that is urgent and immediate and requires our attention because of the unpredictability of foreign events today and because of the unpredictability of this part of the world.

I know, at some point here soon, that the leader will bring up for a second time a vote on the motion to proceed. It is not even a vote on the bill. It is a motion to begin debate on this bill. Nothing else is going on around here. Let them continue to meet and have a dialogue and talk about how to get us out of this shutdown. I hope we do. I hope that happens. Yet don't shut down the Senate, particularly on a topic of this importance, because these events will not wait for us. It is important for us to act.

Please don't go around asking people to stand up to this administration's foreign policies that we don't agree with--when we at least offer a counter or something to diminish its negative impacts-- and respond with obstruction and not just obstruction because of policy but with obstruction in order to make a political point or to avoid a vote that three or four Senators might not want to take. I don't think that makes a lot of sense.

I think, when it comes to the issues of national security and foreign policy, we should try, to the extent possible, to remove them from the daily grind and back-and-forth of American politics because the repercussions are dramatic. That is the one thing that makes national security and foreign policy different from domestic policy. You can always go back and change a bad tax law. You can always go back and change a bad healthcare law. You can always go back and make changes to a bad banking law. You can't undo history. You can't undo wars once they have started. You can't undo carnage once it has occurred. Foreign policy is often irreversible, and once mistakes are made, you have to do the best you can with the hand you have been dealt.

That is why I hope that on this one, we stop playing games, that we get on this bill, and that we pass it so that even as this debate about the shutdown continues, we will make clear to the world and we will make clear to her enemies that we stand with Israel. We always have and we always will across party lines. We may bicker and fight about many things, but when it comes to the support of Israel, we are united-- House and Senate Republicans and Democrats and the White House--in the support of our strongest ally in the region and of one of our strongest allies in the entire world.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, a few moments ago we welcomed our new colleague, my colleague for the State of Florida, former Governor and now U.S. Senator Rick Scott, who will do a phenomenal job here on behalf of the State of Florida. I welcome him to the U.S. Senate, the world's greatest deliberative body--and, on occasion, perhaps the strangest as well.

In about 1 hour 15 minutes, the Senate is going to take up S. 1, which is a combination of four separate bills that enjoy widespread support in this Chamber from colleagues on both sides of the aisle, all of them sponsored and cosponsored by both sides of the aisle, and apparently we will fail to get a significant number of votes to get on this bill, nonetheless.

So it is perhaps one the few places on Earth where people vote against things they are for because of reasons unrelated to the issue at hand. I don't want to dig too deep into that. That will be a topic for conversation later on, and maybe I will be wrong. Maybe they will change their minds in the next 1 hour 15 minutes, and we will have the votes we need, but I don't think it makes a lot of sense to say: I am upset about the government shutdown--by the way, the Senate voted unanimously to fund the government by a voice vote. We didn't even have a rollcall vote. So this Chamber has already enacted in that regard. At this point, it is incumbent on the leaders of the Democratic Party in the Senate, combined with the White House, to come up with a deal to reopen the government. This government shutdown is not good for anybody. I have never seen anybody win one of these.

That said, I don't know why we would shut down the Senate, too, given the issues we face.

About 3 weeks ago, the President announced that the United States was withdrawing from our engagement in Syria. I--and I think the majority of the people in the Senate--believed that decision was a mistake and is a mistake.

While I was certainly encouraged by some of the comments by the head of the National Security Council, Ambassador John Bolton, on the pace and scale and scope of the withdrawal, nonetheless, there have been conflicting statements since then which put this all in question.

At the time he made this decision, we walked through all of the reasons why this was a mistake--not because we want to be in war in Syria forever. That is false. Of course, it has to come to an end, but it needs to come to an end in a way that is in the interest of the United States of America. It is not in the interest of the United States of America to see ISIS reemerge the way they did after 2011, when the United States left Iraq.

When the United States left and pulled back its presence in Iraq, it allowed ISIS to reconstitute itself and reemerge. They were called something different then, but they were basically a spinoff of al- Qaida. They started out as an insurgency and grew very rapidly. They are larger today and they are more powerful today than when they reconstituted themselves almost a decade ago. I have no doubt that if this moves forward, ISIS will reconstitute itself, maybe not as a caliphate but as something equally dangerous, and that is an insurgency with the capability not just to create havoc, mayhem, murder, and destruction in Syria and potentially once again in Iraq but also to externally plot and attack us here on Homeland.

This raises all other types of possibilities, like the Iraqi troops along with irregular forces sponsored by Iran--the Shia militia that have been on the ground in Iraq--coming across the border and into Syria. We all have read and heard about the Turkish troops that want to come into the Kurdish areas.

If Assad is sitting there now with the United States pulling out and all of this is going on, he figures that at this point what does he need a political solution for, what does he need the U.N. or anybody for? The saddest part is that this diminishes the chances that Assad will ever have to face accountability for the crimes committed by his regime against innocent civilians--children, women, and others--not just for the gassing and use of chemical weapons but for widespread torture and murder. We will discuss that more as the week goes on.

We are also concerned about Iran's growing influence with the United States leaving, especially in southeast Iraq and on the border of Jordan and Israel, with Hezbollah and other Iranian proxies and Iran itself, or the IRGC and General Soleimani, who is a maven of murder in that area, basically doing whatever they want. They have more freedom of movement, and there is the direct threat that it poses to both Israel and to Jordan.

By the way, when the Turks come in or potentially Iraqi troops come in--when ISIS is reconstituted and starts killing people again--you are going to have new refugee flows. Maybe it will be mostly Kurds this time, maybe folks from the Syrian defense forces who had fought alongside us for a while and their families. Where will all of these new refugees go? Potentially, some will wind up in Jordan, further destabilizing or testing that country's ability to deal with all of this.

On that last point, both the Kurds and the Syrian defense forces have in excess of 700 ISIS fighters in custody, in prison. Are they going to let them all go? Because without us there supporting them, I don't know how they

are going to hold them, and none of the countries they came from want them back. So you can potentially face hundreds of ISIS fighters being released overnight. These are all the consequences--and more.

What are we going to do if in a few days, a few weeks, or months from now ISIS decides to deploy chemical weapons against the Kurds or others in these areas? That is the parade of horribles, and the possibilities are extraordinary. We could go on and on for a while.

That is why, among other reasons, it was a mistake, and when we came out and said it was a mistake, a lot of people said: What are you going to do about it? Don't just talk; act.

It is difficult in an issue like this. Congress can stop wars. Congress can defund them and deauthorize actions, but Congress cannot force the Commander in Chief to stay in a military engagement. We cannot force the President to deploy troops or keep them somewhere. We can keep him from doing it, but we can't force him to do it. Our options in this field are limited.

We wanted to do something. We felt so strongly about this. The response is S. 1, which is the item before us here today. S. 1, as I said, combines these four bills that enjoy widespread bipartisan support. You would think that in the midst of everything else that is going on, this would be a really good way to start the new Congress, in foreign policy, in an area that traditionally has not been partisan--or shouldn't have been--by combining these four bills into S. 1, which is what is before us today.

I want to briefly outline the four provisions combined in this bill. Two of them deal directly with our ally in Israel. First, it makes very clear that ``it shall be the policy of the United States to provide assistance to the Government of Israel in order to support funding for cooperative programs to develop, produce, and procure missile, rocket, projectile, and other defense capabilities to help Israel meet its security needs and to help develop and enhance United States defense capabilities.''

That last line is important because much of the technology that is being innovated and developed by Israel to defend Israel can also be used by the United States to protect us from rocket attacks there or when we are deployed abroad. The reason why this is so critical is that Hezbollah has a large presence in Syria and has their base of operations in Lebanon. Today, Hezbollah is better funded, better equipped, and has more armaments than at any time in its history.

We all recall the Hezbollah-Israel war from about over a decade and a half ago. The next Israel-Hezbollah war will be far deadlier and costly because Hezbollah no longer simply depends on Iran to provide them the weapons. They make them themselves. Hezbollah no longer has a few rockets. It has enough to potentially overwhelm defenses. That means you could have the best missile defense system in the world, but if you fire enough of them, eventually some of them will get through, and when they get through in a small country like Israel--which at its narrowest point is only 9 miles wide--and it hits a population center and kills thousands of people, then, you know we are facing a catastrophe. Israel will respond to that sort of attack with overwhelming force. This could spiral quickly out of control.

How could we wind up at that point? We could wind up at that point because now that the United States is leaving Syria, the Israelis are going to say: We are not going to allow Iran and Hezbollah to build up its presence. We are going to step up our military attacks inside of Syria.

It is possible, when they step it up, that it is likely that Iran and Hezbollah will respond by hitting back. Then, Israel will hit back even harder. At that point of escalation, you could easily see the missiles start coming out of Lebanon into Israel, and Israel responding with overwhelming force, and then we have a much broader conflict, with thousands--if not hundreds of thousands--of people whose lives are on the line.

So making it clear to Hezbollah or to any enemy of Israel that the United States stands ready to equip them in the case of such a contingency is one of the best things we can do to prevent it from happening. If Israel's enemies believe there is any doubt that the United States will step forward and help Israel resupply in case of such conflict, you have increased the probability that they will miscalculate and take such action.

But if they know that we are committed to rearming Israel as often and as much as possible and necessary in order to help them defend themselves, then, the chances of them attacking are diminished. That is why this bill authorizes U.S. security assistance in foreign military financing to Israel at an amount no less than $3.3 billion a year for the next 10 years.

By the way, this, in essence, is authorizing a memoranda of understanding signed between the Obama administration and Israel. We are authorizing that and putting it into law. We are also authorizing the President to transfer precision-guided munitions to reserve stocks as needed for legitimate self-defense by Israel. The world now knows-- and Israel's enemies now know--that the United States has put aside reserve precision-guided munitions that are there if Israel needs them for us to quickly transport them to them in case they come under attack and run low on the munitions they need to defend themselves. That is the first thing this bill does.

Another thing it does, by the way, is the Combating BDS Act of 2019. For those not familiar with BDS, it is boycott, divestment, and sanctions. It is, in essence, by and large, to punish Israel by convincing companies--international companies and others--to boycott doing business with Israel or Israeli entities, to divest of investments in Israel or Israeli entities, and convincing governments to sanction Israel.

This provision of the law does not outlaw boycott, divestments, and sanctions. If a United States company caves to this pressure and decides it is going to boycott or divest from Israel, they have the legal right to do so. This doesn't outlaw it. However, it does say if a State or local government decides that it is not going to do business or if the government is not going to issue contracts for goods or services with any company that is boycotting or divesting from Israel, they have a right to do that.

I have heard the argument that this is about free speech. First of all, it is not about free speech. It is about foreign policy. We will talk about that more as the week goes on, but there are court cases out there that talk about how this is not an effort to influence a domestic political debate or to speak or take action in the form of speech that influences a domestic political debate. This is about influencing the behavior of a foreign government's foreign policy. The courts give broad discretion to Congress and the President in the setting of our foreign policy.

Putting that aside for a moment, as I told already you, this doesn't in any way prevent anyone from participating in boycotting or divesting from Israel. All it says is that if you do, your clients, in the form of State or local governments, can boycott or divest from you in return. Free speech is a two-way street.

Beyond that, it makes it very clear in the law that nothing in this law should be construed to violate anyone's First Amendment rights.

These are the two provisions that help Israel and to prevent the sort of economic warfare that is being driven against them and to make clear to their adversaries that the United States stands ready to resupply and strengthen Israel's ability to defend itself--not just helping Israel defend itself if it comes under attack but, frankly, in the hopes of deterring an attack against Israel. We do that by authorizing and putting into law the memorandum of understanding that was signed by the Obama administration in September of 2016.

In addition, the third thing the bill does is to deal with Jordan. Jordan is a U.S. ally. It is, by the way, a nation that, along with Egypt, has been a linchpin of Israel's security in the region, and it is also a nation that has faced an onslaught of refugees fleeing the conflict in Syria. They face the threat from ISIS, as well. In S. 1, we reauthorize the United States-Jordan Defense Cooperation Act, which passed

in 2015. It is an act that, among other things, includes Jordan on the list of countries that are eligible for certain streamlined defense sales, because Jordan itself is facing many of the same challenges, particularly because of our pullout from Syria.

If you think the pullout from Syria--especially from southeastern Syria--is a good thing for Jordan, you are wrong. Once the United States leaves that area, the Iranian influence will grow, and potentially, the ISIS influence will grow. It will become harder--not easier--on Jordan. This is the least we can do to strengthen an important ally in this legion.

The last piece is one sponsored by the soon-to-be chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Risch--the Caesar Syria Civilian Protection Act. It does three principle things. It requires the Treasury to determine whether the Central Bank of Syria is a financial institution that launders money for the regime. I am not sure it will take them long to conclude that they are, but that opens the door for the second thing it does, and that is new sanctions on anyone who does business with or provides financing to the Syrian regime.

It also, by the way, requires the administration to brief us here in Congress as part of our oversight role on what our strategy is to facilitate the delivery of humanitarian products and humanitarian assistance inside Syria.

Hopefully, we will be on this bill, but as the week goes on, I sadly will have to come to the floor and point out the horrifying atrocities that have been committed and that, I believe 50 and 100 years from now, people will look back at as one of the most horrifying things that have happened in this century. The people who have done this should be held to account.

This law puts in place not just requiring the administration to tell us what they plan to do in the short term to help people to the extent possible, but it also puts in place the ability to hold those who have done this responsible and accountable for what they did and what they continue to do.

I sincerely hope that we can get on this because the American people in the face of all this noise that is out there are in desperate need of reassurance that our Republic still works and that, at a minimum, we can still agree on what we agree on and we don't use the pretext of a shutdown to shut down the Senate.

As I remind everyone again--and I know we have some new Members--this body unanimously passed a bill to fund the government. I have my views on this shutdown, and I don't understand the objection. It is $5 billion for spending on border security. By the way, it is not $5 billion on a wall. It is $5 billion to fund the top 10 priorities of the border security plan, and included in those top 10 are those of strengthening existing walls and barriers and building some new ones, but it includes far more than just a wall. I remind many of my colleagues who were here in 2013 that when we sponsored the Senate bill on immigration, we authorized four times as much in that bill for border security. Of course, the politics have changed, and so people's positions on the issue of border security have changed.

That said, I am not in favor of government shutdowns. I don't think they make sense. The people have nothing to do with this. They are not responsible for this. Border agents, TSA employees, and Federal employees from these Agencies all across the country are missing paydays now. Their mortgage companies and their credit card companies don't care that there is a shutdown. They want to get paid or they will ruin your credit. I hope we can find a resolution for them--but also for the country--without our abandoning the reality that we need to deal with border security.

Here is what I know, though. I don't believe shutting down the Senate and not allowing us to move forward on something as important as a Syria policy is the way to resolve the shutdown issue. You don't solve a shutdown with a shutdown. Shutting down the Senate and saying we are not doing anything here until we resolve this issue is not a constructive approach, and it is certainly not the way to start this new Congress.

At a time when, I think, the Senate serves as important a role as it has in two decades, this country needs a Senate that is capable of functioning and agreeing on the things we agree on--on passing bills that have broad support and not allowing them to fall victim to debates that are unrelated to the issues at hand. I remind all of my colleagues who, just 2 or 3 weeks ago, joined me and others in criticizing the decision to draw down from Syria; that there isn't a lot we can do in Congress to force the President to stay there, but there are some things we can do to reassure our allies in the region that at least in the U.S. Senate they have our support--that Israel and Jordan and the innocents who have been tortured and killed in Syria have our support. We have a bill before the Senate, S.1, that does that, and I don't know why we are not looking forward to at least debating it.

The vote we are taking in about 60 minutes or 59 minutes from now is not a vote to pass it. It is just a vote to begin debate on it. That is all it is. It is a vote to begin debate on it. To not even allow debate to begin on something we basically largely agree on may make a lot of sense in the hallways here, but it doesn't make a lot of sense to the men and women back home who are already watching the government shutdown with disdain and who then, on top of it, see that not even the Senate can function in the midst of all of this.

I hope, whether it is today or later this week, my colleagues across the aisle will reconsider their objection to even beginning debate so we can get on this and get to work on behalf of the men and women of this country for whom we work and represent.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, earlier today, this morning, the administration announced the intent to remove all American troops--not a large presence, but all Americans troops--from Syria. I want to be clear, as I have been all day about this, that I believe it is a catastrophic mistake that will have grave consequences for the United States, for our interests, and our allies in the months and years to come. I want to take a moment to come here and explain why.

The rationale behind the decision we were given today by the administration is that there is no longer a need for U.S. presence in Syria because ISIS has been defeated. Just a week ago, the President's own envoy to the global coalition on ISIS said this, and I want to quote from the statement that he gave last week to the press. He said:

[T]he end of ISIS will be a much more long-term initiative.

Nobody is declaring a mission accomplished. We know that once

the physical space is defeated we can't just pick up and

leave.

This was a quote from the President's own envoy to the global coalition on ISIS--not 6 months ago, 6 days ago. We don't have time here or I could take up all the time of the Senate to outline statement after statement from military and diplomatic officials in the administration basically echoing the same point.

The point that we are making is this. ISIS still controls territory, particularly, in the Euphrates River valley of Syria. From the territory they still control, they generate money, they control the population, and they produce propaganda videos. Even if that is taken away, ISIS is on its way to turning into an insurgency--meaning, no longer an organization that

controls vast spaces of land or has a capital city--an insurgency like we saw in Iraq, an insurgency like what al-Qaida operated like and continues to operate like. Insurgencies in many ways are even harder to defeat because they don't wave a flag and tell you where they are, because they meld into the population by day and then wreak havoc and suffering by night.

I am not here to deny there hasn't been true progress made against ISIS. There absolutely has. If you look at what ISIS had, what ISIS controlled when this administration began and where they are today, this has been a substantial achievement, but we have to finish the job. The job is not finished.

Why has ISIS's presence in Syria been degraded? It is because the United States, with a very limited military presence--we are not talking Afghanistan here with tens of thousands of troops. We are not talking Iraq here with a massive surge. We are talking about a very capable but light footprint of American primarily trainers and people there to assist, although they most certainly can fight and have done so in the past.

Working alongside a ground force made up of the Syrian Democratic Forces--primarily Arabs--and the Kurdish forces from the YPG, who are highly capable fighters from the Kurds, they have been on the ground fighting with our assistance and our direction and sometimes our direct involvement against ISIS in the Euphrates River valley. They are the reason why in that part of Syria ISIS's control has rapidly degraded. They are the reason, but they are the ones fighting. That has been a difficult thing to achieve because the No. 1 objective of the Kurds is to protect Kurdish cities and towns in northern Syria.

There is a longstanding dispute between the Kurds and Turkey. There is a Kurdish organization in Turkey, and then there is one affiliated with them housed in northern Syria and in cities that are Kurdish cities. Their No. 1 priority is maintaining their cities. That is what they care about the most. Getting them to actually take time out from that interest and confront ISIS was not easy. It has been an enormous achievement to partner and colocate with them in fighting and in degrading ISIS in that area.

As I said, it has not been easy because ISIS is not their top priority. Their No. 1 priority is maintaining control of the Kurdish towns and cities in northern Syria and, more importantly, preventing Turkey and the Turkish military from taking it from them.

They have been threatening to pull out of this ISIS effort for a long time, most recently when Erdogan went around saying: I am on the verge. I am going to invade. I am coming in. Any day now I am going after the Kurds in Syria.

We already knew that if that happened, many of these YPG forces--the Kurds--would abandon the fight on ISIS and immediately be pulled into defending the Kurdish cities. Now that are we are pulling out, now that we are retreating, now that we are abandoning this effort, I can guarantee you that the Kurdish forces are going to leave. They are going back to the Kurdish areas to prepare to confront the Turkish military activity that they have announced and that could be coming at any moment. You know what that means? That means that there will no longer be anyone on the ground in the Euphrates River valley attacking